IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4422 of 2026 ==========================================================

GUJARAT STATE PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED Versus M/S. PMP INFRATECH PVT.LTD.

==========================================================

Appearance:

MR ASPI M KAPADIA(1865) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MS DELSHAD A KAPADIA(10238) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR. AH MOHAPATRA(6807) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 MR. ROHAN U. VED(19464) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS.

JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY Date : 02/04/2026 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)

1. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, suffice is to note that no good ground has been made out to invoke the extra ordinary supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, so as to attach any illegality to the order of rejection of the application under Section-36(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, where-under the petitioner herein has sought stay on the enforcement of the arbitral order during the pendency of the proceedings under Section-34 of the Act, 1996.

2. The Commercial Court has categorically recorded that the learned advocate appearing for the applicant before it had raised various contentions for granting stay, however, at this stage, the entire merits of the matter cannot be adjudicated as it would cause prejudice to the otherside. After saying so, the Court has observed in the order impugned that for stay of the money decree, the Court has to keep in mind the provisions of Section-36 of the Act’ 1996 and unless and until the prima- facie case is made out for grant of stay, no stay of the enforcement of the award ought to be granted.

3. It is further noted therein that as per the Section-36 of the Act’ 1996, money decree by way of arbitral award can be stayed only if the Court is satisfied that the award is obtained through inducement, fraud or corruption.

4. It is also noted by the Court in the order impugned that even as per the general principles of stay of the money decree under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, an exceptional case is to be made out for grant of any stay. It was then held that the present case is neither a matter where blatant/patent illegality or any exceptional circumstances could be pointed out by the learned advocate for the applicant for grant of stay.

5. This order is being challenged before us on the premise that the order of rejection of the application under Section- 36(2) of the Act’ 1996 is cryptic in nature, inasmuch as, the Commercial Court has not dealt with the detail arguments of the learned advocate for the applicant therein about the merits of the application under Section-34, where patent illegality in rendering the award has been pointed out. It was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner before us that to satisfy itself as to whether a case is worth granting stay or not, atleast, the commercial Court while dealing with the application under Section-36(2), was required to touch upon the merits of the challenge to the arbitral award. The rejection of the application under Section-36(2) for the reasoning given in the order impugned that only in a case of inducement, fraud or corruption stay can be granted, is in clear ignorance of the legal principles governing the stay of the money decree under the provisions of Civil Procedure Code/ an arbitral award under Section-36(2) of the Act’ 1996.

6. To deal with this argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner, suffice is to note that nothing could be pointed out even before us during the course of argument which would demonstrate that the award suffer from blatant/patent illegality nor any such exceptional circumstances could be made out before us, which would impel us to attach